View Single Post
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 13-03-2016, 17:57
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,602
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: Request: Picture from camera on pole in driverstation

Quote:
Originally Posted by z_beeblebrox View Post
Usually, the burden is on inspectors and referees to prove that a robot is unsafe, not on teams to prove that it is safe. Why should the poles be handled differently?
I'm not claiming the burden should be any different, or that these poles are illegal. I am simply refuting the logic that of "nobody got hurt somewhere else, it must be safe."

Further still, I don't agree with your premise. The burden is definitely on the teams to prove their designs are safe. For example, no inspector is going to pass a team with a unknown pneumatic component unless the team provides documentation it meets the minimum pressure requirements. Similarly, teams will be failed inspection for sharp edges/corners, even if they have yet to cause a safety or field damage issue.
__________________
Being correct doesn't mean you don't have to explain yourself.
Reply With Quote